The not so final countdown —

Windows 7 given a reprieve of sorts to extend OEM sales

October 30, 2014 is no longer the cut off date—well, at least for now.

Microsoft updated its Windows lifecycle table last week, quietly announcing that OEMs would have to cease preinstalling Windows 7 on new systems by October 30, 2014. Retail boxed copies of the operating system have already ceased, ending on October 30 of this year.

But the company has now removed that 2014 date, claiming that it was a mistake. The date is now "to be determined." The issued statement about the mistake reads:

We have yet to determine the end of sales date for PCs with Windows 7 preinstalled. The October 30, 2014 date that posted to the Windows Lifecycle page globally last week was done so in error. We have since updated the website to note the correct information; however, some non-English language pages may take longer to revert to correctly reflect that the end of sales date is 'to be determined.' We apologize for any confusion this may have caused our customers. We’ll have more details to share about the Windows 7 lifecycle once they become available."

This of course leaves open the possibility that the October 30, 2014 date could by the cut-off.

As things stand, Windows 7 is still due to leave mainstream support on January 13, 2015, giving Windows 7 systems just a few months of full support. Extended support—which for the most part means "security fixes"—is due to run until January 14, 2020.

More pressing is the end of Windows XP's extended support, which is still due to terminate on April 8, 2014.

Microsoft knows that Windows 7 is still a highly valued OS and that Windows 8 is not the replacement that they wanted it to be. I'm looking forward to seeing Windows 7 last longer than XP - it certainly deserves it and is a worthy successor. I suspect that many businesses are opting for Windows 7 over Windows 8 when they are forced to leave Windows XP.

I can't decide if I should dread the day XP leaves support, or laugh at all the people clinging to a 13 year old operating system.

I have a 15 year old push bike.

Get's me from A to B just like a 2013 model.

Do you think that's funny enough to laugh at me?

Or is the modern day all about consumption with scant regard to anything else.

Oh look, they have a 3 year old phone. Let's laugh at them.

Oh look, they have a 13 year old OS, I know all they do is word processing on it, but let's laugh at them.

It truly annoys me.

Does your 15 year old bike require people to do extra work to support it?Does your 15 year old bike able to be stolen by anyone from anywhere in the world with minimal effort?Does your 15 year old bike cause harm to others when stolen?

I suspect that many businesses are opting for Windows 7 over Windows 8 when they are forced to leave Windows XP.

And you would be right. At least that's what happened where I work.

Same, we are currently in the process of upgrading to Win 7 at a very large organization (20,000+). It will be a long time before me move off of Windows 7. Our Macs are still on 10.8, but we are allowed to update to 10.9 if we're fine with the VPN issues.

MS has kept saying that Win 8 is the only way forward. The first crack in the facade, perhaps?

Nah, they've said a couple of months back that Windows 9 will probably bring back "windows 7 usability and productivity" for enterprise users, which many take to mean that the start menu is coming back.

I can't decide if I should dread the day XP leaves support, or laugh at all the people clinging to a 13 year old operating system.

I have a 15 year old push bike.

Get's me from A to B just like a 2013 model.

Do you think that's funny enough to laugh at me?

Or is the modern day all about consumption with scant regard to anything else.

Oh look, they have a 3 year old phone. Let's laugh at them.

Oh look, they have a 13 year old OS, I know all they do is word processing on it, but let's laugh at them.

It truly annoys me.

Unfortunately in this day and age an unsupported OS is dangerous to the user and others, unless they really only do word processing and NEVER connect to the internet. It's not equivalent to a 'push bike'.

I'll be building a new computer and "upgrading" to Windows 7 by the end of the year because extended support for XP will be expiring in 2014. WinXP and my old computer had a good run at 8 years though.

I have a 15 year old push bike.Get's me from A to B just like a 2013 model.

Do you think that's funny enough to laugh at me?Or is the modern day all about consumption with scant regard to anything else. Oh look, they have a 3 year old phone. Let's laugh at them.Oh look, they have a 13 year old OS, I know all they do is word processing on it, but let's laugh at them.It truly annoys me.

Well, it is all about consumption.

I don't have it in my to laugh at people using old hardware that happens to do exactly what they need. I laugh at those using newer hardware with decade-old operating systems running the show.

There's also a large difference between a home user doing only what they need with what they have and a company using obsolete software with no support and known security problems.

I can't decide if I should dread the day XP leaves support, or laugh at all the people clinging to a 13 year old operating system.

I have a 15 year old push bike.

Get's me from A to B just like a 2013 model.

Do you think that's funny enough to laugh at me?

Or is the modern day all about consumption with scant regard to anything else.

Oh look, they have a 3 year old phone. Let's laugh at them.

Oh look, they have a 13 year old OS, I know all they do is word processing on it, but let's laugh at them.

It truly annoys me.

If manufacturers of smartphones actually bothered to keep their phones updated for at least 2 years after release, we wouldn't be laughing at people using a 3-year old phone. Upgrading the OS is a way of extending the life of the hardware, allowing you to keep it longer, reducing e-waste and consumption.

I can't decide if I should dread the day XP leaves support, or laugh at all the people clinging to a 13 year old operating system.

I have a 15 year old push bike.

Get's me from A to B just like a 2013 model.

Do you think that's funny enough to laugh at me?

Or is the modern day all about consumption with scant regard to anything else.

Oh look, they have a 3 year old phone. Let's laugh at them.

Oh look, they have a 13 year old OS, I know all they do is word processing on it, but let's laugh at them.

It truly annoys me.

No dude, it's not enough to laugh at you, but it's enough to pity you. An operating system is not like a bike that gets you from A to B, but more like a vaccine that doesn't let you get sick (and, as such, lets you go from A to B). What you're saying is that the flu vaccine you took 13 years ago is enough for the rest of your life. What you're saying, basically, is that you don't need security updates, because "it has always worked!!!". THAT is stupid.

And I don't mean to offend, I URGE you to inform yourself. You're basically the equivalent of "I don't need a condom because I'm not gay so I can't catch HIV".

:EDIT:To be fair, that's still better that most geeks' (me included) "I don't need a condom because I don't have sex". XD

MS has kept saying that Win 8 is the only way forward. The first crack in the facade, perhaps?

Nah, they've said a couple of months back that Windows 9 will probably bring back "windows 7 usability and productivity" for enterprise users, which many take to mean that the start menu is coming back.

I've got all my hardware and drivers ready. Software too. Soon, all too soon, Windows 98SE (and other DOS-based OS's) will fall off the support of virus writers.

As an added bonus, I'll finally be able to get all those DirectX 3 games working again.

Does it never bother any of you that copyright holders are allowed in effect to say "buy our product and then become dependent on it, until we don't want to support it any more and then we'll FORCE you to use SOMETHING ELSE - possibly breaking things and making your life very difficult"

Why does anybody put up with this? Why is it even legal for MS or Apple for force UI changes on people by the force of copyright law?

I now hold the view that software ought to be sold as an infinitely durable good - you don't want to sell it anymore, that's fine. But by law and force it becomes instantly open source the day it's no longer widely and openly commercially available. (And liability for it would of course cease.)

I have W7 running on one PC in my home. Got Linux Mint, OS X, and XP running on the others. While the XP box is EOL, I see no reason to invest in the Microsoft future (e.g. 8.0/8.1). I cannot see (ignorance?) the benefits out-weighing the drawbacks. I look at the current M$ as Vista all over again (or Win Me for the third time).

Love it or hate it, Windows 8 adds enough under the hood improvements and security enhancements that it doesn't make sense for them to continue to sell Windows 7 licenses forever.

Of course financially it doesn't make sense for M$ to continue to sell Windows 7 licenses forever because the market is already saturated. But from a consumer's standpoint, it doesn't make sense to switch to Windows 8 unless you plan to dump your desktop for a tablet. Even then, the plethora of software designed for that form factor on Android and IOS compared to the absence of titles utilizing Metro make a difficult case to switch to Windows 8 even for a touchscreen device.

Under the hood? Performance wise there are certainly some improvements with Windows 8 over Windows 7 but other than startup/shutdown times these are in the range of barely noticeable. And when you get into the dirty details of 3D and gaming performance (which I would argue is THE crucial segment of the high performance PC market) Windows 7 fares better anyway. (source http://www.techspot.com/review/561-wind ... -windows7/ ) So if you're looking to save a few nanoseconds on your browsing experience, maybe what's under the hood on Windows 8 matters for you, but for the rest of us, it's just a waste of time and money and ultimately a pain in the ass to deal with.

Does it never bother any of you that copyright holders are allowed in effect to say "buy our product and then become dependent on it, until we don't want to support it any more and then we'll FORCE you to use SOMETHING ELSE - possibly breaking things and making your life very difficult"

Why does anybody put up with this? Why is it even legal for MS or Apple for force UI changes on people by the force of copyright law?

I now hold the view that software ought to be sold as an infinitely durable good - you don't want to sell it anymore, that's fine. But by law and force it becomes instantly open source the day it's no longer widely and openly commercially available. (And liability for it would of course cease.)

No. Carmakers aren't forced to support 15-year-old cars, airplane makers aren't forced to support airplanes beyond a certain age, and software makers shouldn't be forced (except by market forces, which have already forced MS to keep supporting XP) to support operating systems that were written decades ago. Most of the people in the trenches that actually coded XP are probably managers or working for other companies now, which means the costs for MS to continue supporting XP will continuously be rising, while your costs of being a luddite (you presumably spent $150 13 years ago) are constant.

I think the spirit behind your "if you don't support it, it becomes open-source" is good, but in reality there will be a lot of patented code, 3rd-party code, or code otherwise encumbered by legal agreements between MS and other companies that would mean a code dump would be useless - it'd either be missing enormous chunks, or would be illegal for them to distribute.

MS has kept saying that Win 8 is the only way forward. The first crack in the facade, perhaps?

Nah, they've said a couple of months back that Windows 9 will probably bring back "windows 7 usability and productivity" for enterprise users, which many take to mean that the start menu is coming back.

If the rumor is true that will simply happen with the Windows 8.x 2015 update.

If I am correct we won't see an actual Windows 9 for several more years.

Windows RT, Windows Run Time ( WinRT ), and Windows 8.x is here to stay for awhile. WinRT will continue to be merged into Windows Phone allowing for a single operating system between a tablet and phone. This will will then allow a single application across all three major devices ( desktop, tablet, and phone ) to be ran.

At some point we will see the framework of Xbox One be offered to those same devices. All a developer would have to do is define the type of input device ( keyboard + mouse, controller, touch screen, ect ).

While I welcome all under-the-hood improvements of W8, I abhor the botched scizo-UI, like many others do. Why can't Windows improve the kernel while leaving the window manager intact? We customers shouldn't have to take the bitter together with the sweet...

While I personally really like Windows 8.1, some people abhor it and are extremely loyal to Win7, so keeping Win7 around only makes sense. If you have consumers asking "would I rather have a Windows 7 machine or a Windows 8.1 machine," they're staying Microsoft customers either way.

Does it never bother any of you that copyright holders are allowed in effect to say "buy our product and then become dependent on it, until we don't want to support it any more and then we'll FORCE you to use SOMETHING ELSE - possibly breaking things and making your life very difficult"

Why does anybody put up with this? Why is it even legal for MS or Apple for force UI changes on people by the force of copyright law?

I now hold the view that software ought to be sold as an infinitely durable good - you don't want to sell it anymore, that's fine. But by law and force it becomes instantly open source the day it's no longer widely and openly commercially available. (And liability for it would of course cease.)

This is the way almost all copyright holders operate. They don't sell you a song or a book or a movie or an office suite to use however you'd like. They sell you a license to use their copyrighted works with very restrictive conditions. Even free and open source software licenses put restrictions on what you can do with their products.

You make think your DVD copy of Star Wars is yours to use as you please, but it is not legal to charge people admission to come to your home to view it. Nor is it legal to make copies of it to sell or give away.

Windows 8/8.1 will fail in killing off Win 7, just as Vista failed to replace Win XP. I don't think corporate users will be in any hurry to adopt Win 8/8.1, it's more likely they'll stick with Win 7 and wait for the next version.

Its funny how history repeats itself, didn't we see something similar 5 or 6 years ago when Windows Vista flopped? At least with Vista Microsoft got it right the second go round (ie win7) With Win8 Microsoft didn't do itself many favors by releasing Win8.1, All they really did was cement the fact that they were incapable of 1. realizing that they had made a huge mistake, and 2. correcting that huge mistake.

Microsoft knows that Windows 7 is still a highly valued OS and that Windows 8 is not the replacement that they wanted it to be. I'm looking forward to seeing Windows 7 last longer than XP - it certainly deserves it and is a worthy successor. I suspect that many businesses are opting for Windows 7 over Windows 8 when they are forced to leave Windows XP.

No operating system should last 13 years; the fact that XP did was a testament to Microsoft's colossal failure in developing XP's various successors.

Windows 8/8.1 will fail in killing off Win 7, just as Vista failed to replace Win XP. I don't think corporate users will be in any hurry to adopt Win 8/8.1, it's more likely they'll stick with Win 7 and wait for the next version.

Well, the problem appears to be that *everything* failed to kill off XP, not just Vista or Win8.

Does it never bother any of you that copyright holders are allowed in effect to say "buy our product and then become dependent on it, until we don't want to support it any more and then we'll FORCE you to use SOMETHING ELSE - possibly breaking things and making your life very difficult"

Why does anybody put up with this? Why is it even legal for MS or Apple for force UI changes on people by the force of copyright law?

I now hold the view that software ought to be sold as an infinitely durable good - you don't want to sell it anymore, that's fine. But by law and force it becomes instantly open source the day it's no longer widely and openly commercially available. (And liability for it would of course cease.)

This is the way almost all copyright holders operate. They don't sell you a song or a book or a movie or an office suite to use however you'd like. They sell you a license to use their copyrighted works with very restrictive conditions. Even free and open source software licenses put restrictions on what you can do with their products.

You make think your DVD copy of Star Wars is yours to use as you please, but it is not legal to charge people admission to come to your home to view it. Nor is it legal to make copies of it to sell or give away.

What the law considers legal, what I consider right, and what most people will get away with anyway, are three very different beasts.